AI policies across the globe: Implications and recommendations for libraries

Abstract

This article examines the proposed artificial intelligence policies of the USA, UK, European Union, Canada, and China, and their implications for libraries. As artificial intelligence revolutionizes library operations, it presents complex challenges, such as ethical dilemmas, data privacy concerns, and equitable access issues. The article highlights key themes in these policies, including ethics, transparency, the balance between innovation and regulation, and data privacy. It also identifies areas for improvement, such as the need for specific guidelines on mitigating biases in artificial intelligence systems and navigating data privacy issues. The article further provides practical recommendations for libraries to engage with these policies and develop best practices for artificial intelligence use. The study underscores the need for libraries to not only adapt to these policies but also actively engage with them, contributing to the development of more comprehensive and effective artificial intelligence governance.

Policies on Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Among Academic Publishers: A Cross-Sectional Audit

“…Despite the novelty of the academic publisher policies introduced for the responsible use of AI chatbots by authors, there are similar cross-sectional audits examining academic publisher or journal policies for authors' use of AI chatbots, as of April 2024 [5,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. There are also scoping reviews and meta-analyses examining the policies and attitudes of educational institutions, libraries, and other individual studies that explore the role of ChatGPT, particularly, in scientific and medical research [21][22][23]. However, only the former cross-sectional audits are considered directly relevant literature for comparison to this study.…”

“…A common theme uncovered in this study and comparative literature is the restriction on listing AI tools as co-authors despite the permitted, declared use of the AI chatbot(s) [5,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. In fact, common ethics forums, such as the Committee of Publishing Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also propounded that this criterion to be adopted by academic publishers.…”